Matt Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's not slated for Blue Crab but we know we have to do something > eventually. I honestly can't answer when we're going to tackle > upgrading, it's the elephant in the room.
Which is the elephant, upgrading to a more recent Zope? or being able to use an existing Zope on the system? I've been doing a bunch of zope/plone work recently and I've become a big fan of NOT sharing zopes. I like the self-contained nature of projects, and it's reflected in how projects built with zc.buildout work. It's taken me a while to get over the idea or running multiple Zopes, but it allows me to avoid problems caused by different zope products and and python libraries, or versions of same. Maybe Plone's more mutant/hairy in this than many zope apps, but Zenoss seems to be hairy enough that it would warrant its own zope. > On Dec 4, 2008, at 11:44 AM, gjohn wrote: >> $BASE >> /bin >> /python >> /plone >> /products >> /zenoss >> /zeo >> /zope Would you really want to have one ZODB storing both Zenoss and Plone content? Seems a bit risky from an information leakage point of view. Just my opinion tho... _______________________________________________ zenoss-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zenoss.org/mailman/listinfo/zenoss-users
